Ineffective small-cal penetrations

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gutshot:

Yes Manchild,I'm probably just too impatient waiting for a shot-up light AFV to die! Thanks for all the hard data and comments guys,and especially SgtWoody's suggestion that I read up on Somalia,as I've long believed you can't beat reading true-life accounts to get the most valid appraisal of things.

More cut and paste of my old posts.

"Immediately thereafter a 52 ton tank that hadn’t previously been noticed fired at Lt Hein’s Panzer. In the exchange of fire, Lt Hein’s Panzer was hit on the turret cupola but wasn’t penetrated. Lt Hein also hit the turret of the 52-ton tank several times. It was later determined that these were clean penetrations. The crew abandoning the enemy tank were killed." (1996 Jentz p229).

The Russian tank crew took several 7,5cm holes to the turret before making the decision to bail.

"One of the two returning Tauchpanzer had a fist sized hole in the upper hull caused by an anti tank gun shell that was expediently sealed with wood splints to prevent water entering."(1996 Jentz P202).

"7. The fantastic combat morale of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that had already been hit five or six times by sending in teams on foot to blow up the tanks with explosives. The Russian tank crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons could be fired." Experience Report by Pz-Regt 33, 31 July 42 (1996 Jentz pg243).

"In the thick of it, my driver says, “The motor is no longer running properly, breaks not acting, transmission working only with great difficulty.”…… Just then we are hit and the radio set is smashed to bits…… From every side, the superior forces of the enemy shoot at us. “Retire.” There is a crash behind us. The motor and the Fuel tank are in the rear. The Panzer must be on fire. I turn around and look through the vision slit. It’s not burning………. We examined damage to the Panzer. My men extricate an APHE shell from the right wall by the fuel tank….. The fuel had run out without igniting." (1998 Jentz Pg111-112) From the Diary of LT Schrom detailing the failed assault on Toburk.

"ENCOURAGE (SGT K.) recived a 47mm shell under the running board as it was withdrawing from the action; this severely wounded Trooper S., who died shortly after." (1998 Jentz pg94)

Somthing from Tsword:

Conscript or Green may bail out, but surely not a veteran crew !

During reading of Nipe's Last Victory, the german tanks were hit quite frequently insuring somebody inside and never did the crew bail unless tank was burning and had to be abandoned, instead they drived into safety first.

The same for Assault Guns (Forget the name of author): Many times the StuG's were penetrated by 14.5 mm ATR's, the crews then tried first to drive into safety but surely didn't bail (Meaning to be slaughtered immediately..)

In Tigers for instance it was barely noticeable if one was hit by ATR's or 45 mm guns as stated by several tancrews, because noise of tank and the battlefield.

Nothing has therefore to be changed IMO (I would rather go crazy...)

more from Me:

Well actually I don't agree, at all. I've got well-trained British tankers waiting for the order to withdraw in spite of turret/hull penetrations and not receiving the order because the Troop commander’s tank is unseen and on fire. Finally receiving the order from the Sqn commander.

I’ve got anecdotes of PIVs in Normandy receiving a turret hit that penetrated blowing open the side hatches, which the crew glibly closed and then drove off. I have photos of a PIV with a hull penetration above the drives vision block with a head bandaged driver smiling at the camera. Anecdotes of IS-2 receiving a turret hit killing the loader and forcing the wounded Commander and gunner to bail while the driver calmly reverses him self out of the Tigers field of fire.

(You have an unshakable belief that marginal penetrations are that panic inducing to trained Tank crewmen, plus some vaguely referred to percentages that quite likely don’t exist. With this well researched argument you expect BTS to agree to your point of view. Good luck mate. =out of context addressing someone else).

[ January 26, 2003, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]